A trial will begin Thursday, Oct. 15 for a woman suing the owners of Kings Island for injuries she claims she received during a ride on the Son of Beast in 2006.

The jury trial is one of two scheduled in Warren County Common Pleas Court during the next two months involving the roller coaster incident that sent 27 people to the hospital in July 2006.

Jennifer Wright of Defiance, Ohio allegedly suffered a hip injury that her attorney claims will require several replacements over her lifetime. She is asking the jury to force Kings Island to pay for punitive damages.

The jury first has to find Kings Island caused Wright's injuries, then it will consider if the park should be punished. Wright's case was originally coupled with five other cases relating to the same incident, but the other plaintiffs have all settled....

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/crime/...day-346078.html

More power to her.

This is going to court?

After 3 years?

My my.

Client’s medical bills have already topped $24,000 and future bills could be as high as $157,541 for three hip replacements.

They pay $24,000 for medical bills with much more in the future and they just decide to sue? Or was this suit filed long ago and just now will go to court?

from the same article:

...Another case, filed by the Schmidt family of Hamilton, is scheduled to go to trial on Nov. 2. The mother and father were off of work for many weeks after the roller coaster ride, Cincinnati attorney Michael Weisensel said. He said they are still in settlement talks with the amusement park.

Attorneys representing Kings Island said they do not discuss pending litigation.

Client's medical bills have already topped $24,000 and future bills could be as high as $157,541 for three hip replacements.

They pay $24,000 for medical bills with much more in the future and they just decide to sue? Or was this suit filed long ago and just now will go to court?

The latter. Discovery takes time. Court dockets are full. And both sides often ask for extensions. Though currently slated to go to trial on Thursday, the case could still settle or be further delayed. Sometimes cases are heard decades after they are filed. Rare, but it does happen.

A trial will begin Thursday, Oct. 15 for a woman suing the owners of Kings Island for injuries she claims she received during a ride on the Son of Beast in 2006.

The jury trial is one of two scheduled in Warren County Common Pleas Court during the next two months involving the roller coaster incident that sent 27 people to the hospital in July 2006.

Jennifer Wright of Defiance, Ohio allegedly suffered a hip injury that her attorney claims will require several replacements over her lifetime. She is asking the jury to force Kings Island to pay for punitive damages.

The jury first has to find Kings Island caused Wright's injuries, then it will consider if the park should be punished. Wright's case was originally coupled with five other cases relating to the same incident, but the other plaintiffs have all settled....

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/crime/...day-346078.html

this could be the deciding factor in SOB's fate....who knows.

If she wins, I doubt SoB will ever reopen.

agreed

Hmmm. So what is she claiming? Again, from the article (and complaint):

...“The defendants, Cedar Fair and PKI, acted with conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the plaintiff by failing to exercise care in the inspection, maintenance and condition of the Son of Beast,” her Springboro attorney John Scaccia wrote in the complaint....

It should be stated that claims made in a lawsuit establish only one side of a case and are not to be taken as fact unless and until proven in a court of law. A settlement is also not an admission of liability or guilt.

the Son of Beast

AAAH!

The article says that it starts Thursday.

Hmmm. So what is she claiming? Again, from the article (and complaint):

..."The defendants, Cedar Fair and PKI, acted with conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the plaintiff by failing to exercise care in the inspection, maintenance and condition of the Son of Beast," her Springboro attorney John Scaccia wrote in the complaint....

It should be stated that claims made in a lawsuit establish only one side of a case and are not to be taken as fact unless and until proven in a court of law. A settlement is also not an admission of liability or guilt.

IMHO any ride that you ride........ride it at your own risk.

Rides shouldn't injure guests unless they have a preexisting condition. She did not.

its like ppl that drink too much and get a bad liver......"oh lets sue the maker of the drink, cause it tore up my liver" Knowing the risks of drinking :S

^^ Or if it is the fault of the manufacturer or the park's fault.

the Son of Beast

AAAH!

The article says that it starts Thursday.

Indeed it does. The headline was initially wrong. It has been corrected and I just corrected it here. Thanks.

Rides shouldn't injure guests unless they have a preexisting condition. She did not.

hmmmmmm, sorry i beg to differ. did they do a background check on her??

its like ppl that drink too much and get a bad liver......"oh lets sue the maker of the drink, cause it tore up my liver" Knowing the risks of drinking :S

That's a very faulty analogy. Did she ride SoB expecting to be injured? No. Do most rollercoasters injure guests? No.

its like ppl that drink too much and get a bad liver......"oh lets sue the maker of the drink, cause it tore up my liver" Knowing the risks of drinking :S

That's a very faulty analogy. Did she ride SoB expecting to be injured? No. Do most rollercoasters injure guests? No.

ok tell me how they are gonna PROVE that the ride did that ?

^^ Agreed. When I ride a coaster, any one, I don't expect to be injured.

She was most certainly on the ride during the accident. The ride could have easily caused her injury.

^^ Agreed. When I ride a coaster, any one, I don't expect to be injured.

and they are gonna have to prove beyond a shadow of doubt

The evidence will be presented at trial, if there is one. Cases are not tried on the Internet, thankfully. And what posters here think, having not heard the evidence and not being either judge or juror, matters very little in the grand scheme of things. I posted this so readers would know the trial is scheduled, not so we could argue about the evidence, which we HAVE NOT HEARD.

She was most certainly on the ride during the accident. The ride could have easily caused her injury.

you said it "COULD" have,

^^ Agreed. When I ride a coaster, any one, I don't expect to be injured.

and they are gonna have to prove beyond a shadow of doubt

Civil court is a reasonable doubt.

Criminal court is beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence will be presented at trial, if there is one. Cases are not tried on the Internet, thankfully. And what posters here think, having not heard the evidence and not being either judge or juror, matters very little in the grand scheme of things. I posted this so readers would know the trial is scheduled, not so we could argue about the evidence, which we HAVE NOT HEARD.

evidence? tell me what evidence is gonna PROVE that happend on that ride

^^ Agreed. When I ride a coaster, any one, I don't expect to be injured.

and they are gonna have to prove beyond a shadow of doubt

Absolutely NOT. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in a civil case to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more probable than not that things occurred as the plaintiff alleged. Even for a criminal case, the standard is not beyond a shadow of a doubt (someone has been watching too much tv law). The criminal law standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

^^ Agreed. When I ride a coaster, any one, I don't expect to be injured.

and they are gonna have to prove beyond a shadow of doubt

Civil court is a reasonable doubt.

Criminal court is beyond a reasonable doubt.

whoops yes you are right ........my bad

^^ Agreed. When I ride a coaster, any one, I don't expect to be injured.

and they are gonna have to prove beyond a shadow of doubt

Absolutely NOT. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in a civil case to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more probable than not that things occurred as the plaintiff alleged. Even for a criminal case, the standard is not beyond a shadow of a doubt (someone has been watching too much tv law). The criminal law standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

So a civil case would be like being 51% certain, right?

Correct, though some states do not allow that as an instruction, others do. Again, there is more than a little likelihood this case will still settle before trial. Cases often settle on the courthouse steps or in the judge's anteroom.